01 TCBAC 081413 agenda v3 - California Courts · Action Requested Please Provide Recommendation...

455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 Tel 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865-4272 Fax 415-865-4205 www.courts.ca.gov

HON. TANI G. CA NTIL -SA KA UYE

Chief Justice of California Chair of the Judicial Council H O N . S T E V E N J A H R

Administrative Director of the Courts

TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

H O N . J A M E S E . H E R M A N

Chair HON. JUDITH ASHMANN-GERST

Vice-chair Mr. Alan Carlson

Ms. Angela J. Davis

Hon. Emilie H. Elias

Mr. James P. Fox

Hon. Teri L. Jackson

Hon. Ira R. Kaufman

Ms. Edith R. Matthai

Hon. Robert James Moss

Mr. Mark P. Robinson, Jr.

On behalf of the Judicial Council Technology Committee, I am forwardingto you as Chair of the Trial Court Budge Advisory Committee for your information, the Technology Committee’s recommendation to the Judicial Council regarding the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno’s Business Case on replacing their V2 case management system. The Judicial Council Technology Committee recognizes the advisory role of the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee. The Judicial Council Technology Committee islooking for your committee’s input prior to our making a final recommendation to the Judicial Council. We look forward to receiving the recommendations from your committee’s August 14, 2013 meeting. We intend to consider those recommendations and make the Technology Committee’s final recommendation to the Judicial Council prior to the council’s August meeting.

Fresno Superior Court submitted a business case to the Judicial Council Technology Committee (JCTC) on replacing their case management systems. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Information

DateAugust 8, 2013

ToHon. Laurie M. Earl, Co-Chair, Trial Court Budget Advisory CommitteeMr. Zlatko Theodorovic, Co-Chair, Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee

FromHon. James E. Herman, Chair, Judicial Council Technology

Committee

SubjectRecommendation to the Judicial Council from the Judicial Council Technology Committee on replacing the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno’s V2 Case Management System

Action RequestedPlease Provide Recommendation

DeadlineAugust 15, 2013

Contact James E. [email protected]

Mark W. Dusman, Chief Information Officer/Director, AOC Information Technology Services Office (ITSO)(415) 865-4999 [email protected]

130

Hon. Laurie M. Earl and Mr. Zlatko Theodorovic August 8, 2013 of 2

Technology Services Office (ITSO) staff reviewed this business case and provided recommendations. The court updated the business case and presented both business cases to the JCTC on Monday, July 29. The JCTC requested the court update the business case to address our questions. The court updated the business case. AOC ITSO staff reviewed the updated business case and provided a summary of options for the JCTC to review at our follow up meeting on August 6, 2013. The JCTC recommendation (Attachment 2) from the August 6, 2013 meeting is included. It is clear that replacing the V2 case management system will be financially beneficial to the Judicial Branch. The Court provided an updated business case (Attachment 1) on August 7, 2013, noting that they are no longer seeking funding assistance to replace the Banner system.

Please let me know if you require further information.

Sincerely,

James E. Herman, Chair Technology Committee

JEH/jcAttachmentscc: Technology Committee Hon. Steven Jahr, Administrative Director of the Courts

Ms. Jody Patel, Chief of Staff, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)Mr. Curt Soderlund, AOC Chief Administrative OfficerMr. Mark W. Dusman, Chief Information Officer/Director, AOC Information Technology Services

Office (ITSO)Ms. Virginia Sanders-Hinds, Senior Manager, AOC ITSO Ms. Jessica Craven, Senior Business Applications Analyst, AOC ITSO

131

Business Case FOR

FRESNO SUPERIOR COURTCASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMS) REPLACEMENT

REVISION DRAFT (OPTION I B)

AUGUST 6, 2013

132

Confidential

Page 2

DOCUMENT REVISIONS Once the document is finalized, any subsequent changes must be noted in the table below, asdescribed in the Revisions section of the General Standards document, which can be found in the following directory: https://jccprojects.webexone.com/r.asp?a=12&id=44120

Version Date Name Change Description Sections

Document LocationThis document is maintained in the following location:

Provide the business case location, e.g., directory path, URL, etc.

Example: https://jccprojects.webexone.com/r.asp?a=12&id=44114

133

3 of 41

RELATED DOCUMENTATION

Version Date Name Description Location

134

4 of 41

APPROVALS Document review of this document and approval of the project by obtaining sign-offs in this section or providing a link to the repository in which electronic approvals (e.g., emails) are archived. A Business stakeholder should be included as one of the approvers and, for large projects approval must be obtained from the ITOC and ITSO Director.

Name Title Signature/Link to Electronic Approval Date

135

5 of 41

CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................................................................................7

2. SOLUTION..........................................................................................................................................................18

Description

2.1.2 Advantages/Disadvantages 2.1.3 Costs

2.2.1 Description 2.2.2 Advantages/Disadvantages

Costs

Description

2.3.2 Advantages/Disadvantages Costs

3. SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................................................................35

136

6 of 41

4. RISKS AND MITIGATIONS ................................................................................................................................37

5. GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................................................38

APPENDIX A: DETAILS OF CCMS V2 DEFICIENCIES ........................................................................................39

APPENDIX B: VENDOR PROPOSAL COMMENTS ..............................................................................................40

137

7 of 41

1. OVERVIEW CCMS V2 is maintained and supported by the judicial branch at an average annual cost of $2.985 million. In addition, the court supports V2 at an average annual cost of $510,084. Fresno Superior Court is asking for up to $2,373,200 to cover the following costs for a case management system to replace CCMS V2 (Criminal and Traffic):

Software license fees $1,200,000Professional Services $654,220Conversion of Data $166,9801 year License & Maintenance $252,000Travel $100,000TOTAL $2,373,200

Savings for the branch over a five year period will be $8,413,587

The judicial branch will have a break even return on investment in 2 years and 4 months. From that point forward, the branch will no longer have a financial liability tied to CCMS V2. It is expected the court could go live on the replacement for CCMS V2 in approximately 18 months from the start date of the project. Cost savings for the branch will begin at the 18 month point as the branch will not have to maintain and support V2. In addition, all other 57 courts will benefit if Fresno goes off CCMS V2 as funding of approximately $3.0 million annually could be available to all other courts.

At this time (8/6/2013) we are asking the committee to only consider our proposal/business plan as it relates to the V2 replacement. We have made alternative plans for the replacement of Banner.

In addition the court will fund annual license and maintenance fees of $756,000 for replacement CMS for years 3 through 5, and soft costs (existing staff resources assigned to the project), hardware, and software costs for this project estimated to be $623,337 for a total cost of $1,379,337. A summary of the funding request is shown below:

138

8 of 41

1.1 BACKGROUND

Considerations made by Fresno Superior Court to mitigate situation

1.1.1. California Case Management System V2 – Fresno is the only court on the system In 2002, the AOC embarked on the development of a single comprehensive case management system that would meet the requirements of the California courts and be configurable for courts of any size in the state, and that would include interim systems that would be supported to ensure smooth court operations until the new case management system would be deployed.

Key milestones

At the request of the Superior Court of Alameda County’s court executive officer, Alameda was selected as the pilot court for V2. Alameda later determined they were unable to participate and withdrew in 2005. In 2005, we (Fresno Superior Court) communicated our need to replace a failing criminal and traffic case management system, COFACS. We joined theV2 program with the understanding other courts would also be deployed on V2. In July 2006, V2 was deployed in Fresno County. In the first calendar quarter of 2007, the decision was made to cancel deployment plans of the remaining V2 candidate courts and use the savings to accelerate the development and deployment of CCMS V4. In 2007, subsequent to deployment, V2 experienced ongoing system performance and stability problems, negatively impacting daily court operations. Over the course of the year, software and hardware remediation measures were developed. Deloitte continued to work with the Fresno court and the AOC to fine-tune theV2 application. Stability issues were resolved by the end of the year. In 2008, the AOC identified an opportunity for substantial cost savings, based on the transition of V2 maintenance and support from the Deloitte team to an AOC

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 Year

FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Total

One Time Deployment of V2 replacement CMS $1,060,600 $1,060,600 $0 $0 $0 $2,121,200

1 Year Maintenance of V2 replacement CMS $0 $252,000 $0 $0 $0 $252,000

TOTAL BRANCH $1,060,600 $1,312,600 $0 $0 $0 $2,373,200



1 Year Maintenance of V2 replacement CMS $0 $0 $252,000 $252,000 $252,000 $756,000

Staffing (existing) $112,752 $112,896 $11,097 $4,561 $4,561 $245,867

Hardware, Software, etc. $304,174 $37,074 $12,074 $12,074 $12,074 $377,470

TOTAL FSC MAINT & SOFT COSTS $416,926 $149,970 $275,171 $268,635 $268,635 $1,379,337

3 YEAR PROJECT COSTS 5 YEAR PROJECTION

SUMMARY OF FUNDING REQUEST

JUDICIAL BRANCH - 5 Years

FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT - 5 Years (100% Court Funded)

$3,215,267$3,752,537

139

9 of 41

in-house team. In 2009, the V2 maintenance and support transition was complete, after nine months of knowledge transfer, on-site training, and cutover. It was considered a successful collaboration. In December 2010 Fresno participated in a survey conducted by the Bureau of State Audits specific to CCMS.

1.1.2. Readiness Assessment for CCMS V4 early adopter On December 6, 2011, the AOC launched a CCMS Implementation Assessment project with Fresno Superior Court. The purpose of the 12 week project was to develop a CCMS V4 adoption approach and plan and to determine the readiness of the Court to proceed with the plan. A final Fresno CCMS Deployment Strategy report detailing approach and plan for CCMS deployment in Fresno Superior Court was presented on February 28, 2012. The plan called for a 24 month deployment timeline. While an MOU was not executed, the court was verbally told we would be an early adopter of CCMS V4 – after San Luis Obispo. In February 2012 Fresno Superior Court was interviewed by representatives of Grant Thornton LLP in part to validate cost estimates for deployment of CCMS V4 to San Luis Obispo as an early adopter, as well as identify additional courts that could also be early adopters. Grant Thornton identified ten critical need courts that if CCMS V4 went forward should be early adopters. Fresno stood out as a definite choice because we were the only court on CCMS V2 and we had successfully completed Readiness Assessment for CCMS V4.

1.1.3. CCMS V4 plug pulled On March 27, 2012, the Judicial Council voted to stop the deployment of CCMS V4 as a statewide technology project. The council directed the CCMS Internal Committee, in partnership with the trial courts, to develop timelines and recommendations to the Judicial Council to find other ways to use the CCMS technology and the state’s investment in the software system, as well as develop new strategies to assist courts with failing case management systems.

1.1.4. Maintenance and Support for CCMS V2 With the deployment of CCMS V4 stopped, Fresno was no longer a candidate as a V4 early adopter. Maintenance and operations support for CCMS V2 is provided by the Information Technology Services Office (ITSO) of the AOC. This support includes legislative updates, defect remediation, software and hardware upgrades, interface testing with judicial partners such as DMV and routine support with forms, notices and reports.

On July 11, 2012, the Judicial Branch Technology Initiatives Working Group announced that it is sponsoring four workstreams to address the short-term critical technology needs for the branch. The workstreams are intended to leverage the expertise within the branch to develop roadmaps, recommendations, and master software and services agreements

140

10 of 41

that can be used by the judicial branch. The four workstreams are: Technology Roadmap; Master Service Agreement/CMS RFP, E-filing and CCMS V2/V3 Maintenance.

The CCMS V2/V3 Maintenance workstreams objective is to determine how the judicial branch will support V2 and V3 courts. Fresno Superior Court’s Technology Director, Mr. Brian Cotta serves as co-chair on this workstream.

In October 2012, the Judicial Council voted to allocate up to $3,568,739 (FY 2012-13) of which $510,084 comes from the court for the maintenance and support of CCMS V2. It was further stated, “The delay in deploying the CCMS requires the existing support model for V2 and V3 programs to be reexamined. As noted above, funding is required on an annual basis to maintain and support V2 and V3.”

Fresno often heard comments about the amount of funds being spent to maintain “one” court. However, we should not be continually criticized and/or punished for a decision made by others to stop the deployment of CCMS V2 and later V4. It must be reiterated that Fresno was a team player with the judicial branch and although we were not the original court identified for V2, our dedicated staff willingly participated and put in thousands of staff hours - completely unaware we would be the only court on the system. Being the only court on V2 was not a Fresno Superior Court decision – it was a judicial branch decision, yet the spotlight is on Fresno.

On October 1, 2012 Fresno Superior Court submitted an Application for Supplemental Funding to replace our legacy case management systems. However, the application was not accepted because we did not meet the criteria set forth of a negative fund balance in the current fiscal year.

On October 24, 2012 a Judicial Branch Technology Initiatives Working Group and Stakeholder Reports meeting was held. Attendees included the Judicial Council Technology Committee, the Court Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC), and the Judicial Branch Technology Initiatives Working Group. The V2/V3 Maintenance and Support Workstream presentation included the following:

Fresno will seek a new case management system and cease using V2 as soon as economically and operationally possible; at which time V2 should be decommissioned.

In the interim, V2 should be maintained on a break/fix level only, including changes necessary to maintain compatibility with computer operating systems, related computer software and any changes in the law.

141

11 of 41

On March 1, 2013 a Judicial Branch Technology Initiatives Working Group meeting was held. Again, V2 was mentioned in the V2/V3 Maintenance and Support Workstream presentation. However, the message was stronger:

Fresno needs to seek a new case management system and cease using V2 as soon as economically and operationally possible; at which time V2 should be decommissioned.

In the interim, V2 should be maintained on a break/fix level only, including changes necessary to maintain compatibility with computer operating systems, related computer software and any changes in the law.

Obstacle: Funding source(s) unknown at this time.

1.1.5. RFP 12-0109-CMS As shown in the table below, Fresno issued a Request for Proposal to replace our legacy case management systems. With the exception of “Notice of Intent to Award” and “Execution of Contract” we have completed all of the key events.

No. Key Events Key Dates1 Court issues RFP 11/20/20122 Deadline for bidders to register for Pre-Proposal (Q&A) Tele-conference 11/26/20123 Pre-Proposal Tele-conference (2:00 PM – 5:00 PM PDT) 11/28/20124 Deadline for bidders to submit questions, requests for clarifications or

modifications to Court11/30/2012

5 Bidder’s Questions & Answers Posted on Court Website, 5:00 PM PDT 12/04/20126 Vendor Solicitation Specifications Protest Deadline 12/05/20127 Proposal due date and time (4:00 PM PDT) 01/09/20138 Court’s Clarifying Questions & Answers Due From Bidders 01/28/20139 Vendor Demonstrations and Interviews 02/06-08 2013

10 Posting of Non-Cost Scores on Court Website 02/12/201311 Public Opening of Cost Proposals 02/19/201312 Notice of Intent To Award TBD13 Execution of contract between vendor and Fresno Superior Court TBD

Over a three month period, a thorough evaluation of four vendor proposals was conducted. A team of four evaluators (management, operations, technology and fiscal), reviewed and scored each vendor’s ability to meet the courts: terms & conditions, business functions, testing, configuration, training, integration, network/desktop, application/architecture/security, DMS, and E-filing requirements. This was followed by each vendor coming to Fresno for an on-site demonstration of their product. Lastly, a complete cost analysis and scoring was done for each vendor’s cost proposal.

142

12 of 41

1.2 OPERATIONAL ALIGNMENT

This request aligns with the Judicial Council’s Goal VI – to enhance the quality of justice by providing an administrative, technological, and physical infrastructure that supports and meets the needs of the public, the branch, and its justice system and community partners, and that ensures business continuity. Technology improvements such as a coordinated and effective case management system is a necessary tool that will better serve the citizens of Fresno County by providing access and the sharing of appropriate information with the public and other public and law enforcement agencies.

1.3 PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY

California Case Management System Version 2 (Criminal & Traffic) deployed in 2006.

Issues CCMS V2 is for a single court – Fresno Superior Court; all eyes are on Fresno and the judicial branch.

CCMS V2 is expensive; in FY 2012-13 annual costs allocated were up to $3,568,739; of which $510,084 comes from the court for the maintenance and support of CCMS V2.

V2 maintenance and support team is comprised of 11 consultants and 2 FTE ITSO staff.

The consultant staff includes two developers, two testers, one applications architect, one operations architect, two database administrators, one service delivery manager, one network security analyst, and one application support analyst.

Full time staff includes a manager and one team lead developer.

All other 57 courts will benefit if Fresno goes off CCMS V2 as funding of approximately $3.0 million annually could be available to all other courts.

CCMS V2 is hosted at CCTC; Fresno Superior Court is more than capable of hosting a case management system and at a significant cost savings.

Opportunity

Fresno’s proposal is an opportunity:

To deploy a replacement CMS for an expensive single court V2 system;

To take advantage and harness leading edge technology that will enable court staff to work more efficiently; critical in these times of reduced statewide funding and reduced staff;

Judicial branch to get out of the maintenance and support business of CCMS V2;

143

13 of 41

A significant positive long-term cost saving effect on the judicial branch;

All other 57 courts to benefit if Fresno goes off CCMS V2 as funding of approximately $3.0 million annually could be available to other courts.

With the high costs to run CCMS V2, Fresno believes this is a cost saving opportunity to replace V2. However, while Fresno Superior Court does not have a negative fund balance, we are still not in a position to fund the complete cost of a replacement CMS. Our fund balance at June 30, 2013 is estimated to be $8,406,206 which will enable us to use some of the funds to pay for the maintenance costs of the replacement CMS. If the courts do not receive relief by way of restored cuts, our fund balance on June 30, 2014 is estimated at this time to be no more than the 1% allowed. We are not certain what formula will be used to get us to our 1% figure, but are estimating it will be $330,000; not enough for one payroll period.

The court’s share of the $60 million in new funding is $1,538,195; the court’s share of unfunded employee health and pension benefit increases is $2,359,880 leaving the court with a significant shortfall of ($821,685). The net 2013-14 reduction for this court is ($6,837,179).

1.4 SCOPE

Fresno Superior Court respectfully seeks funding in FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 up to $2,373,200 in to enable the procurement of a replacement case management system to replace CCMS V2 (Criminal and Traffic). In addition the court will fund annual license and maintenance fees of $756,000 for replacement CMS for years 3 through 5, and soft costs (existing staff resources assigned to the project), hardware, and software costs for this project estimated to be $623,337 for a total cost of $1,379,337. Because the maintenance and support costs of CCMS V2 is the most critical factor, we will work with the vendor to deploy the replacement for V2 (criminal and traffic) first. With a 24 month deployment, we felt 18 months was an adequate amount of time to keep V2 up and supported.

1.5 BENEFITS

In addition to the cost savings benefits already mentioned, other benefits to the court to replace V2 include:

1.5.1. Taking advantage and harnessing leading edge technology that will enable court staff to work more efficiently; critical in these times of reduced statewide funding and reduced staff.

1.5.2. New technology with clerk/judge session views; flexible and extensible framework; future-date based financial changes (critical to the court based upon what is necessary for us to do with current CMS); standard and custom defined code words.

1.5.3. Rapid (in court) Data Entry to enable clerks easier and faster data entry.

144

14 of 41

1.5.4. Exhibit management – from courtroom to destruction.

1.5.5. Rich DMS and E-filing built in systems.

1.5.6. Clerk’s Transcript (TAP) built in.

1.5.7. Deficiencies noted in Appendix C will be resolved with replacement CMS.

See next page for Return on Investment for the branch in replacing V2 legacy system.

145

Con

fiden

tial

Page

15

Year

1Ye

ar 2

Year

3Ye

ar 4

Year

55

Year

FY 2

013/

14FY

201

4/15

FY 2

015/

16FY

201

6/17

FY 2

017/

18To

tal

Mai

ntai

n cu

rren

t V2

CMS

(Jud

icia

l Bra

nch)

$2,4

25,6

54$3

,023

,341

$3,1

49,3

14$3

,155

,775

$3,1

70,0

27$1

4,92

4,11

1

JUDI

CIAL

BRA

NCH

- 5

Year

s

Year

1Ye

ar 2

Year

3Ye

ar 4

Year

55

Year

FY 2

013/

14FY

201

4/15

FY 2

015/

16FY

201

6/17

FY 2

017/

18To

tal

One

Tim

e D

eplo

ymen

t of V

2 re

plac

emen

t CM

S$1

,060

,600

$1,0

60,6

00$0

$0$0

$2,1

21,2

00

1 Ye

ar M

aint

enan

ce o

f V2

repl

acem

ent C

MS

$0$2

52,0

00$0

$0$0

$252

,000

TOTA

L B

RAN

CH

$1,0

60,6

00$1

,312

,600

$0$0

$0$2

,373

,200

JUDI

CIAL

BRA

NCH

- 5

Year

s

Year

1Ye

ar 2

Year

3Ye

ar 4

Year

5

JUDI

CIAL

BRA

NCH

RET

URN

ON

INVE

STM

ENT

FY 2

013/

14FY

201

4/15

FY 2

015/

16FY

201

6/17

FY 2

017/

18

Annu

al C

ost

$1,0

60,6

00$1

,312

,600

$0$0

$0

Elim

inat

ion

of V

2 M

aint

enan

ce$0

-$1,

311,

671

-$3,

149,

314

-$3,

155,

775

-$3,

170,

027

Prio

r Yea

r RO

I Car

ry o

ver

$0$1

,060

,600

$1,0

61,5

30-$

2,08

7,78

5-$

5,24

3,56

0RE

TURN

ON

INVE

STM

ENT

$1

,060

,600

$1,0

61,5

30-$

2,08

7,78

5-$

5,24

3,56

0-$

8,41

3,58

7

Brea

k Ev

en P

oint

2 Y

rs 4

Mos

Not

e: Y

ear 2

incl

udes

6 m

os V

2 m

aint

sav

ings

-$1.

511

mil

and

4 m

os ra

mp

dow

n co

sts

+ $2

00K

(cos

t pro

vide

d by

ITSO

)

Year

Beg

. of Y

ear

Mon

th 1

23

45

67

89

1011

12 En

d of

Yea

r

1-

$

88,3

84$

88,3

84$

88,3

84$

88,3

84$

88,3

83$

88,3

83$

88,3

83$

88,3

83$

88,3

83$

88,3

83$

88,3

83$

88,3

83$

1,06

0,60

0$

21,

060,

600

$

109,

384

$

109,

384

$

109,

384

$

109,

384

$

109,

383

$

109,

383

$

(92,

562)

$

(92,

562)

$

(92,

562)

$

(92,

562)

$

(142

,562

)$

(1

42,5

62)

$

1,06

1,53

0$

31,

061,

530

$

(262

,443

)$

(2

62,4

43)

$

(262

,443

)$

(2

62,4

43)

$

(262

,443

)$

(2

62,4

43)

$

(262

,443

)$

(2

62,4

43)

$

(262

,443

)$

(2

62,4

43)

$

(262

,443

)$

(2

62,4

42)

$

(2,0

87,7

85)

$

Brea

k Eve

n 2

year

s 4 m

onth

s

4(2

,087

,785

)$

(262

,981

)$

(2

62,9

81)

$

(262

,981

)$

(2

62,9

81)

$

(262

,981

)$

(2

62,9

81)

$

(262

,981

)$

(2

62,9

81)

$

(262

,981

)$

(2

62,9

82)

$

(262

,982

)$

(2

62,9

82)

$

(5,2

43,5

60)

$

5(5

,243

,560

)$

(264

,169

)$

(2

64,1

69)

$

(264

,169

)$

(2

64,1

69)

$

(264

,169

)$

(2

64,1

69)

$

(264

,169

)$

(2

64,1

69)

$

(264

,169

)$

(2

64,1

69)

$

(264

,169

)$

(2

64,1

68)

$

(8,4

13,5

87)

$

TOTA

L SA

VIN

GS

OVE

R FI

VE Y

EARS

= $

8,41

3,58

7

146

16 o

f 41

Year

1Ye

ar 2

Year

3Ye

ar 4

Year

5To

tal C

ost

FY 2

013/

14FY

201

4/15

FY 2

015/

16FY

201

6/17

FY 2

017/

18Fr

om T

CTF

Stay

on

V2JC

Sub

sidy

2,42

5,65

4$

3,02

3,34

1$

3,14

9,31

4$

3,15

5,77

5$

3,17

0,02

7$

14,9

24,1

11$

Depl

oy T

yler

to re

plac

eDe

ploy

men

t1,

060,

600

$

1,

060,

600

$

2,

121,

200

$

V

2 an

d Ba

nner

Mai

nt. &

Lice

nse

252,

000

$

252,

000

$

Ram

p do

wn

200,

000

$

200,

000

$

V2 S

ubsi

dy (a

bove

)2,

425,

654

$

1,

511,

671

$

-

$

-$

-

$

3,93

7,32

5$

Tota

l Cos

t to

JC3,

486,

254

$

3,

024,

271

$

-

$

-$

-

$

6,51

0,52

5$

"Inv

estm

ent"

1,06

0,60

0$

930

$

(3,1

49,3

14)

$

(3

,155

,775

)$

(3,1

70,0

27)

$

(Bre

ak e

ven

poin

t 2 Y

ears

4 M

onth

s)

Savi

ngs t

o TC

TF O

ver 5

-Yea

r Per

iod

8,41

3,58

7$

Fres

no S

uper

ior C

ourt

Cost

Ben

efit/

Retu

rn o

n In

vest

men

t

147

Confidential

Page 17

1.6 OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives of this project are to:

Provide positive long-term cost savings for the judicial branch with the decommission of CCMS V2, a single court system, by relieving the branch of the maintenance and support of V2 that will in turn reduce annual expenditures of $2.985 million.

Free up judicial branch funds of approximately $3.0 million used annually to support CCMS V2 to benefit all other 57 courts in the State.

Deploy a replacement CMS with products that include case management, financial management, E-filing, and DMS capabilities. One that is highly configurable, fully integrated and efficient with data flows that eliminate duplication of data entry.

1.7 FUNDING SOURCES

If the Judicial Council approves this funding request for up to $2,373,200, the funding source will be the Trial Court Trust Fund. In addition the court will fund annual license and maintenance fees of $756,000 for replacement CMS for years 3 through 5, and soft costs (existing staff resources assigned to the project), hardware, and software costs for this project estimated to be $623,337 for a total cost of $1,379,337.

Justice partners in Fresno County do not have integrated data exchanges, and unfortunately are unable to electronically interact. Therefore, integration with local justice partners is not part of this project.

The preferred vendor Tyler Technologies will cover the costs for court interfaces to DOJ, DMV, JBSIS and Sheriff warrant interface. However, we are unable to provide the dollar estimate of those interfaces.

148

18 of 41

2. SOLUTION

2.1 RECOMMENDED

The recommended solution is to replace CCMS V2.

2.1.1 DESCRIPTION

Fresno has taken several proactive steps to get off of V2 which include:

A 12-week Readiness Assessment as a potential Early Adopter court for CCMS V4.

Staff participation (Co-chair) in V2/V3 Workstream (Judicial Branch Technology Initiatives Working Group).

Staff participation in Statewide Initiative for a Case Management System RFP.

Staff participation in the evaluation and scoring of San Luis Obispo’s RFP for a new CMS.

Conduct a Request for Proposal for a new CMS; meeting all deadlines timely;reviewed three (3) potential vendors and their products; and are ready to move forward with a preferred vendor.

After careful and thorough review and analysis, the preferred CMS for Fresno Superior Court is Tyler Technology’s Odyssey Justice Suite, a widely adopted nationwide commercial court case management system. Tyler has 30 years of experience with a strong corporate organization backing their product. Odyssey’s product includes case management, financial management, E-filing, and DMS capabilities. It is highly configurable, minimizing the need for customization, and with our limited court technology staff - an important factor we considered. Odyssey is a fully integrated system, with data flows that eliminate duplication of data entry. With a staff vacancy rate of 20% and growing, this is a critical feature. Tyler is new to California, but committed to cover the costs associated with DOJ, DMV and JBSIS interfaces. Tyler is currently deploying a replacement CMS in San Luis Obispo and Kings Superior Courts, as well as been selected by the California Information Technology Managers Forum (CITMF) as one of three vendors to enter into a Master Services Agreement to offer technology solutions and pricing to courts statewide.

149

19 of 41

2.1.2 ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES

CCMS V2 is maintained and supported by the judicial branch at an average annual cost of $2.985 million. In addition, the court supports V2 at an average annual cost of $510,084. Fresno Superior Court is asking for up to $2,373,200 to cover the following costs for a case management system to replace CCMS V2 (Criminal and Traffic):

Software license fees $1,200,000Professional Services $654,220Conversion of Data $166,9801 year License & Maintenance $252,000Travel $100,000TOTAL $2,373,200

Savings for the branch over a five year period will be $8,413,587

The judicial branch will have a break even return on investment in 2 years and 4 months. From that point forward, the branch will no longer have a financial liability tied to CCMS V2. It is expected the court could go live on the replacement for CCMS V2 in approximately 18 months from the start date of the project. Cost savings for the branch will begin at the 18 month point as the branch will not have to maintain and support V2. In addition, all other 57 courts will benefit if Fresno goes off CCMS V2 as funding of approximately $3.0 million annually could be available to all other courts. .

At this time (8/6/2013) we are asking the committee to only consider our proposal/business plan as it relates to the V2 replacement. We have made alternative plans for the replacement of Banner.

In addition the court will fund annual license and maintenance fees of $756,000 for replacement CMS for years 3 through 5, and soft costs (existing staff resources assigned to the project), hardware, and software costs for this project estimated to be $623,337 for a total cost of $1,379,337. A summary of the funding request is shown below:

150

20 of 41

Advantages of Tyler Technology Odyssey

2.1.2.1. Highest RFP Score = 95 (Technical and Cost)

2.1.2.2. Tyler is able to deploy a replacement CMS for CCMS V2 in 24 months.

2.1.2.3. Leading edge technology that will enable court staff to work more efficiently; critical in these times of reduced statewide funding and reduced staff. Examples include clerk/judge session views; judge’s workbench session; flexible and extensible framework; future-date based financial changes; standard and custom defined code words.

2.1.2.4. Rapid (in court) Data Entry to enable clerks easier and faster data entry.

2.1.2.5. Exhibit management – from courtroom to destruction.

2.1.2.6. Rich DMS and E-filing built in systems.

2.1.2.7. Clerk’s Transcript (TAP) built in.

2.1.2.8. During the on-site demonstration, Tyler team was able to answer every question; seemed to be the most advanced CMS we saw of all the demonstrations.

2.1.2.9. On-site demonstration resulted in a number of positive comments from judges, managers, supervisors, seniors and clerks.

2.1.2.10. Proposal was the most professional; did not have to search for responses; laid out well and in particular the timeline was easy to follow and reasonable in terms of deployment.

2.1.2.11.Numbers are accurate; costs well analyzed; no hidden costs.

2.1.2.12.Excellent response from their customers during reference check.



One Time Deployment of V2 replacement CMS $1,060,600 $1,060,600 $0 $0 $0 $2,121,200

1 Year Maintenance of V2 replacement CMS $0 $252,000 $0 $0 $0 $252,000

TOTAL BRANCH $1,060,600 $1,312,600 $0 $0 $0 $2,373,200



1 Year Maintenance of V2 replacement CMS $0 $0 $252,000 $252,000 $252,000 $756,000

Staffing (existing) $112,752 $112,896 $11,097 $4,561 $4,561 $245,867

Hardware, Software, etc. $304,174 $37,074 $12,074 $12,074 $12,074 $377,470

TOTAL FSC MAINT & SOFT COSTS $416,926 $149,970 $275,171 $268,635 $268,635 $1,379,337

3 YEAR PROJECT COSTS 5 YEAR PROJECTION

SUMMARY OF FUNDING REQUEST

JUDICIAL BRANCH - 5 Years

FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT - 5 Years (100% Court Funded)

$3,215,267$3,752,537

151

21 of 41

2.1.2.13. Lastly, a crucial factor was the cost comparison and analysis among the proposed vendors; Tyler scored the highest in product pricing based on the following:

Unlimited # of users - no per user fee. Lower vendor and staff hours required for deployment. No maintenance cost for year 1. Out of the box; not a lot of configurations saving court costs for staff time. No fee for email service. Clerk's Transcript (TAP) built in. Built in DMS. Annual fee for unlimited users is less expensive than alternate vendor; critical because these will be ongoing costs year after year.

Disadvantages of Tyler Technology Odyssey

1. Tyler is new to California; currently deploying in San Luis Obispo (on schedule).

2. Tyler will cover the costs for California interfaces such as DOJ, DMV and JBSIS.

3. While Tyler is the highest first year cost deployment, it is important to note there is no maintenance fee for year 1, and the annual user fee which is for unlimited users is less expensive than alternate vendor - critical because these will be ongoing costs year after year.

2.1.3 COSTS

Table 2.1.3.2. include costs for the 24 month deployment period, as well as maintenance and support through year 5.

152

22 of 41

2.1.3.1 ASSUMPTIONS

Until V2 replacement is online, funding to maintain and support V2 will remain in place.

Until V2 replacement is online, the court and ITSO V2 team will continued to make legislative updates and/or fix critical breaks.

When replacement CMS comes online, there will be a 2 week parallel cycle of running V2 and replacement CMS to ensure accuracy of the new system.

After the 2 week cycle, V2 will remain online for another 30 days before the shutdown of hardware at CCTC.

Justice partner interfaces for Sheriff warrants, DOJ, DMV and JBSIS are included in preferred vendor’s scope of work.

153

23 of 41

2.1.3.2 COST TABLE

One-Time Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Total

RecommendedStaff (Salaries & Benefits) Phase I - Project Planning 1 Project Manager 13,776$ 13,824$ 1,382$ 28,982 6 SME staff 10,080$ 10,080$ 1,008$ 21,168 4 IT staff 4,032$ 4,032$ 403$ 8,467 Phase II - Design & Development 1 Project Manager 26,928$ 26,976$ 2,698$ 56,602 10 SME staff 12,864$ 12,864$ 1,286$ 27,014 9 IT staff 15,360$ 15,360$ 1,536$ 32,256 Phase III - Deployment 1 Project Manager 13,152$ 13,200$ 1,320$ 27,672 10 SME staff 10,800$ 10,800$ 1,080$ 22,680 8 IT staff 3,840$ 3,840$ 384$ 8,064 Phase IV - Project Conclusion 1 Project Manager 1,920$ 1,920$ 3,840 Hardware Purchase 147,600$ 147,600 Software Purchase/Licenses-Infrastructure 131,574$ 131,574 Software Purchase/Licenses-CMS 600,000$ 600,000$ 1,200,000 Telecommunications - Contract Services -

Software Customization-Conversion 83,490$ 83,490$ 166,980 Project Management-Professional Srvs 327,110$ 327,110$ 654,220 Project Oversight 12,500 12,500 25,000 IV&V Services 12,500 12,500 25,000 Other Contract Services -

Total Contract Services - Data Center Services - Agency Facilities - Other-Travel 50,000$ 50,000$ 100,000

Total One-time IT Costs 1,477,526$ 1,198,496$ 11,097$ -$ -$ 2,687,119$

Continuing IT Project Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Total

RecommendedStaff (Salaries & Benefits) Ongoing maintenance & support SME staff 3,374$ 3,374$ 6,748 2 IT staff 1,187$ 1,187$ 2,374 Hardware Lease/Maintenance - Software Purchase/Licenses-Infrastructure 12,074$ 12,074$ 12,074$ 12,074$ 48,296 Software Maintenance/Licenses-CMS 252,000$ 252,000$ 252,000$ 252,000$ 1,008,000 Telecommunications - Contract Services - Data Center Services - Agency Facilities - Other -

Total Continuing IT Costs -$ 264,074$ 264,074$ 268,635$ 268,635$ 1,065,418$

Summary Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Total

RecommendedTotal One-Time Costs 1,477,526 1,198,496 11,097 - - 2,687,119 Total Continuing IT Project Costs - 264,074 264,074 268,635 268,635 1,065,418

Project Total 1,477,526$ 1,462,570$ 275,171$ 268,635$ 268,635$ 3,752,537$

3,215,267$ 3 Yr Prj Costs 3,752,537$ 5 Yr Projection

842,067$ FSC 1,379,337$ FSC2,373,200$ JC 2,373,200$ JC

Recommended: Preferred Vendor Tyler Technolgies Odyssey Case ManagerUPDATED 8/6/2013 - OPTON I B - V2 ONLY - NO BANNER

154

24 of 41

2.1.3.3 COSTS FOR EXTERNAL ENTITIES As shown in the table above, Fresno Superior Court will be responsible to pay the vendor’s annual maintenance and license fees of $252,000 for years 3 through 5. Fresno currently pays $510,084 each year for V2 maintenance – therefore, in going with the preferred vendor, Fresno will save $258,084 (50.5%) over current contract maintenance costs every year. The savings will certainly help the court mitigate other court operations costs. For the judicial branch –average annual costs are $2.985 mil. (based on FY 2013/14 through 2017/18 annual cost projection); replacement of V2 will certainly relieve the branch of V2’s annual financial burden and benefit all other 57 trial courts.

Justice partners in Fresno County do not have integrated data exchanges, and unfortunately are unable to electronically interact. Therefore, integration with local justice partners is not part of this project.

The preferred vendor Tyler Technologies will cover the costs for court interfaces to DOJ, DMV, JBSIS and Sheriff warrant interface. However, we are unable to provide the dollar estimate of those interfaces.

155

25 of 41

2.2 ALTERNATIVE ONE

Do Nothing

2.2.1 DESCRIPTION

CCMS V2:

This option would give the judicial branch and the court no alternative but to continue as the only court in the State on this CCMS version.

To continue with CCMS V2 is expensive; in FY 2012-13 annual costs allocated were up to $3,568,739; of which $510,084 comes from the court for the maintenance and support of CCMS V2. Average annual costs are $2.985 mil. (based on FY 2013/14 through 2017/18 annual cost projection).

To continue with CCMS V2 all other 57 courts are denied access to approximately $3.0 million annually that is used to maintain and support V2.

To continue with CCMS V2 would ignore the comments of the Judicial Council on March 27, 2012 when it was stated, “V2 and V3 programs need to be reexamined.”

To continue with CCMS V2 would ignore the work of the Judicial Branch Technology Initiatives Working Group established July 11, 2012 under the JC Technology Committee. One of the workstreams is CCMS V2/V3 Maintenance, to which a recommendation has been made on more than one occasion:

Fresno should (needs to) seek out a new case management system, and separate from V2 as soon as economically and operationally possible; at which time V2 would be decommissioned.

The V2 CMS should be maintained on a break/fix level only and changes necessary to allow for compatibility with computer operating systems, related computer software and any changes in the law.

Obstacle: Funding source(s) unknown at this time.

156

26 of 41


Disadvantages of doing nothing by staying on CCMS V2 – Cost

CCMS V2 is for a single court – Fresno Superior Court; all eyes are on Fresno and the judicial branch.

CCMS V2 is expensive; annual cost to the judicial branch to maintain and support is approximately $2.985 million. To maintain V2 at the current funding level for five years - will cost the branch just under $15.0 million.

V2 maintenance and support team is comprised of 11 consultants and 2 FTE ITSO staff.

The consultant staff includes two developers, two testers, one applications architect, one operations architect, two database administrators, one service delivery manager, one network security analyst, and one application support analyst.

Full time staff includes a manager and one team lead developer.

All other 57 courts will benefit if Fresno goes off CCMS V2 as funding of approximately $3.0 million annually could be available to all other courts.

CCMS V2 is hosted at CCTC; Fresno Superior Court is more than capable of hosting a case management system and at a significant cost savings.

Disadvantages of doing nothing by staying on CCMS V2 – Operations

While CCMS V2 has been stable – it still has far too many deficiencies that prevent it from being a robust and efficient case management system such as:

Inability to enter Priors and Enhancements in criminal cases.

Inability to print prison abstracts.

No electronic DOJ reporting.

Inaccurate Case Summary screen.

Consolidated complaints/information cannot be entered into V2.

Unable to enter warrant exceeding $99,999,999.99.

DUI macro must be used to distribute fines/fees correctly.

Once cases are heard they are dropped from “calendar” list and we are unable to reprint past calendars.

When new laws are implemented and monetary amounts are modified it can takes months to configure and test the implementation of fees in the V2 CMS.

V2 does not interface with our DMS.

157

27 of 41

V2 does not have any work queues.

V2 currently does not allow for electronic filing.

V2 currently has no mechanism in place to identify all delinquent debt.

V2 currently does not have a web portal available for public access to case information online.

With V2 on an Oracle platform, we are limited to the amount of data mining and reporting Fresno IT staff can accomplish, making us reliant on AOC consultants to provide ad hoc or custom reports.

V2 is hosted out of the CCTC, controlled by the AOC. The court does not have any control or input in regards to hardware (servers/storage/etc.)

See Appendix A for additional details related to CCMS V2 deficiencies.

Advantage of doing nothing

In terms of fiscal responsibility, there is no advantage to doing nothing.

In terms of operations efficiency, there is no advantage to doing nothing.

2.2.3 COSTS

2.2.3.1 ASSUMPTIONS

Not Applicable.

158

28 of 41

2.2.3.2 COST TABLE


RecommendedStaff (Salaries & Benefits) Phase I - Project Planning 1 Project Manager - 6 SME staff - 4 IT staff - Phase II - Design & Development 1 Project Manager - 10 SME staff - 9 IT staff - Phase III - Deployment 1 Project Manager - 10 SME staff - 8 IT staff - Phase IV - Project Conclusion 1 Project Manager - Hardware Purchase - Software Purchase/Licenses-Infrastructure - Software Purchase/Licenses - Telecommunications - Contract Services -

Software Customization-Conversion - Project Management-Professional Srvs - Project Oversight - IV&V Services - Other Contract Services -

Total Contract Services - Data Center Services - Agency Facilities - Other-Travel -

Total One-time IT Costs - - - - - -


RecommendedStaff (Salaries & Benefits) Phase I - Project Planning 1 Project Manager - 6 SME staff - 4 IT staff - Phase II - Design & Development 1 Project Manager - 10 SME staff - 9 IT staff - Phase III - Deployment 1 Project Manager - 10 SME staff - 8 IT staff - Hardware Lease/Maintenance - Software Purchase/Licenses-Infrastructure - Software Maintenance/Licenses - Telecommunications - Contract Services - Data Center Services - Other-CMS Support-JC 2,425,654$ 3,023,341$ 3,149,314$ 3,155,775$ 3,170,027$ 14,924,111 Other-CMS Support-FSC 510,084$ 510,084$ 510,084$ 510,084$ 510,084$ 2,550,420

Total Continuing IT Costs 2,935,738$ 3,533,425$ 3,659,398$ 3,665,859$ 3,680,111$ 17,474,531$


RecommendedTotal One-Time Costs - - - - - - Total Continuing IT Project Costs 2,935,738 3,533,425 3,659,398 3,665,859 3,680,111 17,474,531

Project Total 2,935,738$ 3,533,425$ 3,659,398$ 3,665,859$ 3,680,111$ 17,474,531$

Alt 1: Do NothingUPDATED 8/6/2013 - OPTON I B - V2 ONLY - NO BANNER

159

29 of 41

2.2.3.3 COSTS FOR EXTERNAL ENTITIES

As shown in the table above, if we do nothing, the judicial branch would continue to pay on average $2.985 million each year to maintain and support V2. To continue at the current funding level for five years will cost the branch just under $15 million. All other 57 courts will benefit if Fresno goes off CCMS V2 as funding of approximately $3.0 million annually could be available to all other courts.

To do nothing, Fresno Superior Court would continue to pay fees of $510,084 each year for V2 maintenance – therefore, in going with the preferred vendor, with annual fees of $252,000, Fresno will save $258,084 (50.5%) over current costs. The savings will certainly help the court mitigate other court operations costs.

160

30 of 41

2.3 ALTERNATIVE TWO

Consideration of alternate vendor.

2.3.1 DESCRIPTIONOver a three month period, a thorough evaluation of four vendor proposals was conducted. A team of four evaluators (management, operations, technology and fiscal), reviewed and scored each vendor’s ability to meet the courts: terms & conditions, business functions, testing, configuration, training, integration, network/desktop, application/architecture/security, DMS, and E-filing requirements. This was followed by each vendor coming to Fresno for an on-site demonstration of their product. Lastly, a complete cost analysis and scoring was done for each vendor’s cost proposal. See Appendix B for comments of vendor proposals.

FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT CMS RFP SCORE COMPARISON FEBRUARY 2013

Max.

Points ISD Sustain Tyler /1 AMCAD Business Requirements and Deployment Services 40 24 27 38 17 Terms & Conditions 30 24 27 28 20 Cost 30 5 10 29 0

TOTAL SCORE 100 53 64 95 37

/1 Disqualified due to insufficient response

With the exception of “Notice of Intent to Award” and “Execution of Contract” we have completed all of the key events. However, we have had to ask all proposed vendors for anextension of their offer; that extension is set to expire on September 8, 2013 and therefore we would like to issue a Notice of Intent to Award no later than August 30, 2013.


Of the four vendor proposals, we were left to choose between Tyler Technologies or Sustain.

Disadvantages of Sustain eCourt

2.3.2.1. Score = 64 (Technical and Cost)

2.3.2.2. Concerns heard during demonstration: eCourt not deployed anywhere in California. eCourt Criminal module not deployed in California. eCourtPublic (public/LE portal) at demonstration showed a mock "Riverdale" county; appeared this was not yet real time deployed.

161

31 of 41

2.3.2.3. At the demonstration vendor told us they had multiple eCourt deployments in progress: Placer, Sonoma, and Tulare. In checking with some of these courts, deployment was delayed.

2.3.2.4. Sustain’s proposal was very vague in terms of deployment saying they would need to meet with us first. Without sufficient detail in their RFP response it was difficult for us to know what we would get and in what timeframe. Other areas of concern:

Throughout proposal and on-site demonstration, it was clear court staff would be required to do the bulk of configurations; and

At the demonstration Sustain told us the amount of time to train Placer and Santa Barbara staff on "configurations" for traffic was 6 hours a day for 4-5 weeks.

2.3.2.5. At the time of our RFP, configuration was not completed in civil, criminal and traffic; yet the expectation was Fresno would use another court's configuration. Our concern is that most of the courts currently deploying are Sustain Justice courts – and are being configured to eCourt; Fresno is not on Sustain Justice. We question how we would take configurations from a court with a foundation of Sustain Justice – and then on to eCourt when we have no foundation in Sustain Justice. Our court would require "new mapping," but very little detail was provided as to how that would occur or how long it would take.

2.3.2.6. Another concern is Sustain is a “leased” CMS system - we would not purchase, thus we would be locked into leasing year after year.

2.3.2.7. Sustain is a per user license/maintenance based system (fees will vary based on number of users). Different fees were quoted ($889/1003/$821) and for 470 users. With a current vacancy rate of 20%, user fees will increase costs as we add staff.

2.3.2.8. Vendor is relying heavily on court staff to do conversion and configurations for Banner and V2.

Total hours requested for Court staff: 28,406 hrs. Total hours requested for Sustain staff: 14,154 hrs. Total Sustain and Court requested hours were more than double the preferred vendor hours.

2.3.2.9. The timeline in the RFP response missed a number of components: i.e. which configurations our court would use, Gap analysis, DMS, Conversion, and E-filing. There was little detail for a testing plan, schedule or timeline.

2.3.2.10. No Clerk’s Transcript (TAP) equivalency.

2.3.2.11. Vendor includes $150 per hour for "Additional Statement of Work" services but does not include what they could be or # of hours.

2.3.2.12. Vendor includes $200 per hour for "Service calls (non-bug fixes and Legislative updates)," but does not include what these could be or # of hours. FSC knows for certain there are major Legislative updates 1-2 times per year and therefore this is a very real unknown cost we will surely have to bear every year.

162

32 of 41

The annual ongoing maintenance of the alternate vendor is 6.3% higher than the preferred vendor – every year. In addition, the alternate vendor quoted for 470 users – a low figure as we currently have a 20% vacancy rate, and we are certain the user fees quoted will increase as we add staff. The alternate vendor only leases their software – the Fresno Superior Court would not own the system, leaving the court vulnerable to unknown future costs. Our analysis showed the number of court staff hours requested for the alternate vendor was twice the preferred vendor. With a 20% vacancy rate, and growing every day, the court does not have the staff resources necessary to deploy the alternate vendor’s system.

Advantage of Sustain

The only advantage is their first year deployment costs are lower than the preferred vendor. However, this is offset by the fact their maintenance costs for years 2 through 5 are higher thanthe preferred vendor. This is critical to pay attention to because these will be ongoing costs year after year and as mentioned above, we know this will increase because the proposal was quoted for 470 users and we have a 20% vacancy rate.

2.3.3 COSTS

2.3.3.1 ASSUMPTIONS

Not Applicable.

163

33 of 41

2.3.3.2 COST TABLES

Per User license/maintenance will vary based on number of users; above cost based on a total of 470 users; with a current vacancy rate of 20%, we know the user fees quoted above will increase as we add staff.

2.3.3.3 COSTS FOR EXTERNAL ENTITIES

As shown in the table above, annual software maintenance begins in year 1. Fresno Superior Court would be responsible to pay the annual maintenance fee of $410,000 to maintain the replacement CMS; over a five year period this would total $1,640,000. This is 6% higher than the preferred vendor and only covers 470 users whereas the preferred vendor is for unlimited users.


RecommendedStaff (Salaries & Benefits) Phase I - Project Planning 1 Project Manager 13,776$ 13,824$ 1,382$ 28,982 6 SME staff 10,080$ 10,080$ 1,008$ 21,168 4 IT staff 4,032$ 4,032$ 403$ 8,467 Phase II - Design & Development 1 Project Manager 26,928$ 26,976$ 2,698$ 56,602 10 SME staff 12,864$ 12,864$ 1,286$ 27,014 9 IT staff 15,360$ 15,360$ 1,536$ 32,256 Phase III - Deployment 1 Project Manager 13,152$ 13,200$ 1,320$ 27,672 10 SME staff 10,800$ 10,800$ 1,080$ 22,680 8 IT staff 3,840$ 3,840$ 384$ 8,064 Phase IV - Project Conclusion 1 Project Manager 1,920$ 1,920$ -$ 3,840 Hardware Purchase 147,600$ 147,600 Software Purchase/Licenses-Infrastructure 131,574$ 131,574 Software Purchase/Licenses 410,000$ 410,000 Telecommunications - Contract Services -

Software Customization-Conversion 240,000$ 240,000 Project Management-Professional Srvs 821,550$ 821,550 Project Oversight 12,500 12,500 25,000 IV&V Services 12,500 12,500 25,000 Other Contract Services -

Total Contract Services - Data Center Services - Agency Facilities - Other-Travel -

Total One-time IT Costs 1,888,476$ 137,896$ 11,097$ -$ -$ 2,037,469$


RecommendedStaff (Salaries & Benefits) Ongoing maintenance & support 10 SME staff 3,374$ 3,374$ 6,748 2 IT staff 1,187$ 1,187$ 2,374 Hardware Lease/Maintenance - Software Purchase/Licenses-Infrastructure 12,074 12,074$ 12,074$ 12,074$ 48,296 Software Maintenance/Licenses-CMS 410,000 410,000$ 410,000$ 410,000$ 1,640,000 Telecommunications - Contract Services - Data Center Services - Agency Facilities - Other -

Total Continuing IT Costs -$ 422,074$ 422,074$ 426,635$ 426,635$ 1,697,418$


RecommendedTotal One-Time Costs 1,888,476 137,896 11,097 - - 2,037,469 Total Continuing IT Project Costs - 422,074 422,074 426,635 426,635 1,697,418

Project Total 1,888,476$ 559,970$ 433,171$ 426,635$ 426,635$ 3,734,887$

Alt 2: SustainUPDATED 8/6/2013 - OPTON I B - V2 ONLY - NO BANNER

164

34 of 41

2.4 SOLUTIONS COST COMPARISONS

2.5 OTHER ALTERNATIVES

Not aware of any alternatives at this time.

Tyler Technolgies Odyssey Case Manager Do Nothing

Alternate Vendor - Sustain

One-Time Costs Recommended Alt1 Alt2Staff (Salaries & Benefits) Phase I - Project Planning 1 Project Manager 28,982 - 28,982 6 SME staff 21,168 - 21,168 4 IT staff 8,467 - 8,467 Phase II - Design & Development 1 Project Manager 56,602 - 56,602 10 SME staff 27,014 - 27,014 9 IT staff 32,256 - 32,256 Phase III - Deployment 1 Project Manager 27,672 - 27,672 10 SME staff 22,680 - 22,680 8 IT staff 8,064 - 8,064 Phase IV - Project Conclusion 1 Project Manager 3,840 - 3,840 Hardware Purchase 147,600 - 147,600 Software Purchase/Licenses-Infrastructure 131,574 - 131,574 Software Purchase/Licenses 1,200,000 - 410,000 Telecommunications - - - Contract Services - - -

Software Customization-Conversion 166,980 - 240,000 Project Management-Professional Srvs 654,220 - 821,550 Project Oversight 25,000 - 25,000 IV&V Services 25,000 - 25,000 Other Contract Services - - -

Total Contract Services - - - Data Center Services - - - Agency Facilities - - - Other-Travel 100,000 - -

Total One-time IT Costs 2,687,119$ -$ 2,037,469$

Continuing IT Project Costs Recommended Alt1 Alt2Staff (Salaries & Benefits) Ongoing maintenance & support SME staff 6,748 - 6,748 2 IT staff 2,374 - 2,374 Hardware Lease/Maintenance - - - Software Purchase/Licenses-Infrastructure 48,296 - 48,296 Software Maintenance/Licenses-CMS 1,008,000 - 1,640,000 Telecommunications - - - Contract Services - - - Data Center Services - - - Other-CMS Support-JC - 14,924,111 - Other-CMS Support-FSC - 2,550,420 -

Total Continuing IT Costs 1,065,418$ 17,474,531$ 1,697,418$

Summary Costs Recommended Alt1 Alt2Total One-Time Costs 2,687,119 - 2,037,469 Total Ongoing Costs 1,065,418 17,474,531 1,697,418

Project Total 3,752,537$ 17,474,531$ 3,734,887$

1,379,337$ FSC2,373,200$ JC

Fresno Superior Court CMS Replacement: Summary ComparisonUPDATED 8/6/2013 - OPTON I B - V2 ONLY - NO BANNER

165

35 of 41

3. SCHEDULE

3.1 KEY DELIVERABLES

With adequate funding - the plan to move forward includes issuing the Notice of Intent to Award, and entering into a contract with the preferred vendor. Once a contract is in place, Fresno Superior Court will meet with the vendor and put into place a 24 month deployment timeline with the following deliverables:

Project/Deployment Plan

Fit Analysis

Infrastructure Analysis

Standard Configurations

Integration Analysis

Testing Plan

Training Plan

Deployment (go live) in stages

166

36 of 41

3.2 MAJOR MILESTONES

Once a contract with the preferred vendor is in place, the following major milestones will be completed as follows:

Phase Time to CompleteProject/Deployment Plan 1-2 MonthsFit Analysis 3 MonthsInfrastructure set up 2 MonthsStandard Configurations 1-2 MonthsTesting Throughout phaseInitial Training 3 MonthsIntegration 4-5 MonthsTesting Throughout phase Deployment (go live) in stages

Criminal and Traffic (V2) specific configurationData conversionTestingFollow up Training

3 Month9 MonthsThroughout deploymentContinuous

167

37 of 41

4. RISKS AND MITIGATIONS

Risk MitigationThere is a detailed implementation plan that covers a 24 month period. A potential risk is the implementation could take longer due to unforeseen situations such as inadequate vendor or court staff resources.

Within the detailed plan are 4 phases. Within each phase are numerous ‘stopping’ points to test, stage and enter into production a particular phase. There are also ‘deliverables’ set. The court will have an executive steering committee overseeing the project. The court and vendor has each assigned a project manager and team that will report to the steering committee. Every effort will be made by the steering committee, project manager and team to follow the timeline in the plan. It is anticipated the vendor and court will keep each other continuously informed about issues and by doing so, both will be in a position to mitigate issues as they arise.

If the issue is inadequate vendor or court resources, we would make a strong effort to ensure enough resources are available by consolidating operations duties and freeing up court staff to assist in the implementation. We would ask the same of the vendor.

This is an ‘out of the box’ CMS and with that comes the potential risk of managing change. In addition components such as configurations could take longer than expected, or a function V2 currently has –the replacement CMS does not.

We are going from a unique (single court) CMS to a well-established one and understandably it will be necessary to change some of the court’s business practices to take full advantage of the replacement CMS functionalities. Court Executive staff has agreed this may be necessary and has in place a process for change management. In addition, staff training will play a major role.

There is a potential risk that when the V2 replacement CMS comes online, data issues may emerge.

The replacement for V2 is projected to take 18 months. Included in the project is a ramp downplan to take V2 offline. There will be a 2 week parallel cycle of running V2 and replacement CMS to ensure accuracy of the new system. After the 2 week cycle, V2 will remain online for another 30 days before the shutdown of hardware at CCTC.

168

38 of 41

5. GLOSSARY

Term Description

169

39 of 41

APPENDIX A: DETAILS OF CCMS V2 DEFICIENCIES

170

40 of 41

APPENDIX B: VENDOR PROPOSAL COMMENTS

FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT CMS RFP SCORE COMPARISON FEBRUARY 2013

Max.

Points ISD Sustain Tyler /1 AMCAD Business Requirements and Deployment Services 40 24 27 38 17 Terms & Conditions 30 24 27 28 20 Cost 30 5 10 29 0

TOTAL SCORE 100 53 64 95 37

/1 Disqualified due to insufficient response

AMCAD submitted a proposal but was disqualified due to insufficient response to RFP, even after clarifying questions were sent to the vendor. They received a preliminary score of 37.

ISD submitted a proposal. Comments regarding this vendor follow:

1. Score = 53 (Technical and Cost)

2. A major concern during the technical review was the timeline for deployment seemed too short with not enough time calculated to complete all aspects of a CMS deployment. The timeline was extremely difficult to read (tiny font and poor print quality).

3. During the onsite demonstration vendor corrected implementation schedule and in doing so the deployment went from 20 to 34 months. With the correction adjusted to 34 months, we questioned if the time for both ISD and court staff was stated accurately in the RFP; and if the project would come in on time and within budget.

4. ISD’s product is a per user license/maintenance based fee platform (fee will vary based on # of users); with a current vacancy rate of 20%, we know the user fees quoted will increase as we add staff.

a. Per user license based fees ($114 per user). b. Per user maintenance based fees ($780 per user increases each year from $780

first year to $828 per user in Year 5 - average cost per user - $798.

5. There were numerous spreadsheet calculation errors throughout all spreadsheets; including column calculations and column totals. In addition, although they had Attachment 15 which showed we had 429 staff; 53 judges; 950 workstations – ISD quoted for only 135 users for each Banner and V2. Of concern is by them quoting a lower user number, their bid is lower, but incorrect. It would really be underpriced and not accurate to what the true cost would be and with this being a per user fee based

171

41 of 41

platform - we will be charged for every user and 135 users is an extremely low number when we stated we had 429 staff. In correcting errors and recalculating for 470 users our figures showed this bid underpriced by $845,414.

6. Costs for both Banner and V2 were identical as though copied without true analysis, making it difficult to ascertain if project will come in on time and within budget.

7. The project management hours were identical to vendor SMEs hours as though no analysis was done for a true deployment.

8. The reports module appeared to not be 'ad hoc'. Their RFP response showed 21 pages of pre-set reports; for efficiency, we need the ability to run ‘ad hoc’ reports. In addition, ISD reports use Crystal; we use Active Reports.

9. ISD does not support File Net; our RFP clearly stated this is our DMS platform.

10. ISD is an Oracle shop only; no SQL – we use SQL.

11. The Clerk’s Transcript module cannot be sent electronically so it would be useless to us.

12. It was unclear to us if the E-file module was an ISD in-house tool thereby potentially limited use.

13. ISD uses old technology; driven by lots of code entry like Banner Courts 4.1.

14. Reference checks were completed.

With the calculation errors; incorrect number of users quoted (too low) and deployment timeline off considerably (too few months) – we deemed the vendor to be non-responsive and not an option for the court.

172

ON

GOIN

G V2

DEF

ICIE

NCI

ES A

PRIL

201

3AP

PEN

DIX

A

V-2

Def

icie

ncy

Impa

ct o

f Def

icie

ncy

Bene

fits o

f get

ting

it re

solv

edO

pera

tions

Inab

ility

to e

nter

Prio

rs a

nd E

nhan

cem

ents

in C

rimin

al C

ases

Upo

n im

plem

enta

tion

of V

2 th

e Co

urt w

as a

dvise

d th

at p

riors

and

en

hanc

emen

ts c

ould

be

adde

d to

CM

S ho

wev

er it

was

con

sider

ed

an "e

nhan

cem

ent"

. Cur

rent

ly V

2 do

es n

ot a

llow

for t

he e

ntry

of

prio

rs a

nd e

nhan

cem

ents

. Cu

rren

tly o

ur m

inut

e or

ders

refle

ct th

at

the

defe

ndan

t adm

its p

rior(

s) a

nd e

nhan

cem

ent(

s).

It do

es n

ot

stat

e th

e sp

ecifi

c pr

ior o

r enh

ance

men

t adm

itted

. W

here

ther

e ar

e m

ultip

le p

riors

and

enh

ance

men

ts a

llege

d th

e ch

ange

of p

lea

form

m

ay o

nly

refle

ct a

dmiss

ion

of o

ne p

rior o

r one

enh

ance

men

t ca

usin

g an

inac

cura

te re

cord

ing

of w

hat o

ccur

red

on th

e re

cord

. N

ot h

avin

g th

is in

form

atio

n on

the

CMS

can

caus

e an

una

utho

rized

se

nten

ce o

r may

not

allo

w th

e co

urt t

o im

pose

the

max

imum

se

nten

ce.

Entr

y of

the

prio

rs a

nd e

nhan

cem

ents

into

this

CMS

will

allo

w th

e m

inut

e or

der t

o re

flect

an

accu

rate

acc

ount

of w

hat o

ccur

red

on th

e re

cord

with

out o

rder

ing

a Co

urt R

epor

ter T

rans

crip

t. T

he m

inut

e or

ders

that

are

sent

to p

roba

tion

alon

g w

ith a

cop

y of

the

chan

ge o

f pl

ea fo

rm w

ill a

llow

pro

batio

n to

reco

mm

end

that

max

imum

se

nten

ce fo

r con

sider

atio

n by

the

Judg

e. T

he C

lerk

can

pro

mpt

the

Judg

e at

sent

enci

ng w

hen

an a

dmitt

ed p

rior o

r enh

ance

men

t is n

ot

disp

osed

. A

noth

er b

enef

it w

ould

be

that

Pris

on a

bstr

act c

an b

e pu

lled

from

the

CMS

savi

ng th

e Co

urt d

uplic

atio

n of

wor

k to

pre

pare

th

e ab

stra

ct.

Inab

ility

to p

rint p

rison

abs

trac

tsDu

e to

prio

rs a

nd e

nhan

cem

ents

not

bei

ng e

nter

ed in

to V

2 w

e ar

e un

able

to p

rint p

rison

abs

trac

t fro

m th

e CM

S. C

ausin

g ad

ditio

nal

reso

urce

s to

prep

are

each

pris

on c

omm

itmen

t.

With

the

limite

d re

sour

ces a

vaila

ble

to C

ourt

due

to th

e St

atew

ide

Fisc

al C

risis.

Sta

ff w

ould

not

nee

d to

dup

licat

e w

ork.

The

tim

e sp

ent

man

ually

typi

ng o

ut p

rison

abs

trac

ts c

an b

e us

ed to

wor

k on

oth

er

prio

rity

wor

k.N

o El

ectr

onic

DO

J Rep

ortin

g U

pon

each

arr

est o

f a d

efen

dant

a JU

S871

5 is

prod

uced

. Th

e Co

urt

is m

anda

ted

to re

port

a d

ispos

ition

of e

ach

arre

st w

ithin

30

days

. Si

nce

we

do n

ot h

ave

a DO

J int

erfa

ce o

ur c

ourt

man

ually

com

plet

es

the

finia

l disp

ositi

on to

DO

J. It

take

s 3-5

min

utes

to c

ompl

ete

a JU

S871

5 an

d 5-

8 m

inut

es to

com

plet

e a

subs

eque

nt a

ctio

n fo

rm.

We

are

not c

urre

ntly

in fu

ll co

mpl

ianc

e in

repo

rtin

g th

e in

terim

di

spos

ition

s due

to th

e tim

e co

nstr

aint

s (be

nch

war

rant

s,

susp

ensio

ns o

f pro

ceed

ings

, div

ersio

ns, e

tc.).

We

are

only

re

port

ing

final

disp

ositi

ons t

o DO

J.

Addi

tiona

l aft

er c

ourt

tim

e w

ill n

ot n

eed

to b

e sp

ent m

anua

lly fi

lling

ou

t JU

S871

5 fo

rms a

nd c

reat

ing

copi

es.

We

will

also

be

in fu

ll co

mpl

ianc

e in

repo

rtin

g in

terim

disp

ositi

ons a

nd re

voca

tions

tim

ely.

De

fend

ants

CLE

TS d

ispos

ition

will

also

be

curr

ent.

Inab

ility

to e

nter

Def

aulti

ng W

itnes

ses/

Body

Att

achm

ents

We

are

unab

le to

pro

duce

a m

inut

e or

der w

ith th

e w

itnes

ses'

info

rmat

ion.

Cur

rent

ly ja

il no

tices

are

man

ually

reda

cted

to re

flect

w

itnes

s inf

orm

atio

n or

a m

anua

l (CO

FACS

) min

ute

orde

r is

prep

ared

and

info

rmat

ion

ente

red

unde

r the

def

enda

nt

info

rmat

ion

in T

EXT

code

.

Save

staf

f tim

e an

d in

sure

jail

rece

ives

app

ropr

iate

info

rmat

ion

for

rele

ase

or h

old.

V2

wou

ld a

lso re

flect

an

accu

rate

acc

ount

of t

he

even

ts.

Jail

War

rant

s Ja

il W

arra

nts w

ere

unab

le to

be

tran

smitt

ed to

the

FSO

War

rant

De

part

men

t ele

ctro

nica

lly.

The

jail

war

rant

s wer

e m

anua

lly ty

ped

and

hand

del

iver

ed to

the

FSO

War

rant

Dep

artm

ent f

or a

ctiv

atio

n.

Wor

k ar

ound

cre

ated

in M

arch

of 2

013.

C:\U

sers

\pw

alla

ce\D

eskt

op\0

1 Te

mp

FSC

ROI\

Form

s fro

m A

OC\

Appe

ndix

A V

2 De

ficie

ncie

s.xl

sx V

2 O

pera

tions

117

3

ON

GOIN

G V2

DEF

ICIE

NCI

ES A

PRIL

201

3AP

PEN

DIX

A

V-2

Def

icie

ncy

Impa

ct o

f Def

icie

ncy

Bene

fits o

f get

ting

it re

solv

edIn

accu

rate

Cas

e Su

mm

ary

Scre

en

The

Case

Sum

mar

y Sc

reen

doe

s not

cap

ture

all

disp

ositi

on u

pdat

es

in re

gard

s to

priso

n, st

ate

hosp

ital c

omm

itmen

ts a

nd M

SR

revo

catio

ns a

nd sp

lit se

nten

ces (

LPO

/MSR

). A

t tim

es th

e fis

cal

info

rmat

ion

is no

t acc

urat

e. W

e ha

d to

pla

ce a

disc

laim

er in

V2

stat

ing

that

the

Sum

mar

y sc

reen

is n

ot a

ccur

ate.

Thi

s iss

ue c

ause

s ad

ditio

nal i

nqui

res t

o ou

r sta

ff fr

om th

e pu

blic

and

JP's

seek

ing

clar

ifica

tion

or v

alid

atio

n of

the

true

stat

us o

f the

cas

e.

If th

e su

mm

ary

coul

d be

util

ized

it w

ould

be

effic

ient

for t

he p

ublic

an

d JP

's to

acc

ess t

heir

stat

us.

Oth

erw

ise th

ey re

ad th

e en

tire

dock

et re

port

and

inte

rpre

t the

out

com

e or

stat

us o

f cas

e. T

his

agai

n w

ill sa

ve c

ourt

reso

urce

s in

not h

avin

g to

ans

wer

thei

r qu

estio

ns.

Inab

ility

to p

rint m

inut

e or

ders

for m

issin

g co

mpl

aint

sCu

rren

tly V

2 is

unab

le to

prin

t min

ute

orde

rs d

ue to

no

case

nu

mbe

r or a

llege

d ch

arge

info

rmat

ion

for m

issin

g co

mpl

aint

s. S

taff

is pr

epar

ing

wor

d m

inut

e or

ders

to d

istrib

ute

in c

ourt

and

also

m

akin

g ap

prop

riate

ent

ries i

n V2

. Ch

arge

s are

not

ent

ered

bec

ause

th

ere

is no

way

to m

ask

the

info

rmat

ion

for t

he p

ublic

.

Save

staf

f tim

e. W

ill n

ot b

e co

mpl

etin

g do

uble

wor

k.

Amen

ded

Com

plai

ntW

hen

an a

men

ded

com

plai

nt is

file

d, th

e da

ta e

ntry

cle

rk h

as to

ex

it “C

ourt

room

” af

ter s

avin

g up

to a

cer

tain

poi

nt o

n th

e m

inut

e or

der a

nd a

dd th

e am

ende

d co

mpl

aint

in c

ase

mai

nten

ance

. Th

e Co

urtr

oom

app

lets

is th

en re

trie

ved

and

the

rem

aind

er o

f the

m

inut

e or

der i

s ent

ered

. Th

e pr

oces

s is t

ricky

and

tim

e co

nsum

ing

and

caus

es a

lot o

f err

ors.

Th

is w

ork

arou

nd w

as c

reat

ed so

the

dock

et re

port

can

cap

ture

an

accu

rate

acc

ount

of w

hat o

ccur

red

in

cour

t and

also

for J

BSIS

stat

s to

coun

ted

corr

ectly

.

Cons

olid

ated

com

plai

nts/

info

rmat

ion

cann

ot b

e en

tere

d in

to V

2.Co

nsol

idat

ed c

ompl

aint

s/in

form

atio

n ca

nnot

be

ente

red

into

V2.

Th

e m

anua

l wor

k ar

ound

is a

TEX

T co

de a

nd th

en th

e da

ta e

ntry

cl

erk

ente

rs th

e do

cum

ent a

s an

amen

ded

com

plai

nt/in

form

atio

n th

ru c

ase

mai

nten

ance

. Th

e Da

ta C

lerk

then

retr

ieve

s the

co

urtr

oom

app

let a

nd su

ppre

sses

info

rmat

ion

so th

e m

inut

e or

der

can

refle

ct a

true

acc

ount

of t

he e

vent

s. T

his i

s tim

e co

nsum

ing

and

dela

ys p

rodu

ctiv

ity.

True

Nam

e fin

ding

W

hen

a tr

ue n

ame

findi

ng is

mad

e on

the

reco

rd th

e do

cket

cod

e w

as m

odifi

ed to

a te

xt c

ode

due

to p

erso

n m

aint

enan

ce e

rror

s.

The

data

ent

ry c

lerk

now

has

to u

pdat

e pe

rson

mai

nten

ance

m

anua

lly a

nd th

en u

pdat

e th

e ca

se m

aint

enan

ce sc

reen

prio

r to

prin

ting

min

ute

orde

rs c

ausin

g a

dela

y in

dist

ribut

ion.

C:\U

sers

\pw

alla

ce\D

eskt

op\0

1 Te

mp

FSC

ROI\

Form

s fro

m A

OC\

Appe

ndix

A V

2 De

ficie

ncie

s.xl

sx V

2 O

pera

tions

217

4

ON

GOIN

G V2

DEF

ICIE

NCI

ES A

PRIL

201

3AP

PEN

DIX

A

V-2

Def

icie

ncy

Impa

ct o

f Def

icie

ncy

Bene

fits o

f get

ting

it re

solv

edPC

1203

.4 D

ismiss

als/

Ove

rage

Rep

ort

Whe

n a

case

is d

ismiss

ed p

ursu

ant t

o PC

1203

.4 a

ll pr

evio

us fe

es

paid

will

gen

erat

e an

ove

rage

on

the

case

. V2

iden

tifie

s the

di

smiss

al a

s a tr

ue d

ismiss

al a

nd a

pplie

s a c

redi

t. E

ach

case

has

to

be re

view

ed to

insu

re a

refu

nd is

not

gen

erat

ed in

err

or.

To

rem

ove

the

over

age

the

mon

ey is

ent

ered

man

ually

usin

g m

aint

enan

ce fe

es; f

ollo

wed

by

a w

ork

orde

r to

deny

the

chec

k.

Poss

ible

fix

impl

emen

ted

April

201

3

Min

ute

Ord

ers c

an n

ot e

lect

roni

cally

be

sent

to Ju

stic

e Pa

rtne

rs.

V2 is

cap

able

of s

ettin

g up

a P

DF fo

rmat

to se

nd

to a

genc

ies.

Curr

ently

min

ute

orde

rs, j

ail n

otic

es a

nd fi

scal

not

ices

are

prin

ted

and

dist

ribut

ed to

just

ice

part

ners

at e

ach

hear

ing.

Add

ition

al

notic

es a

re p

rinte

d up

on d

ispos

ition

and

whe

n re

ferr

als a

re m

ade

to p

roba

tion

and

the

jail.

Whe

n a

plea

is e

nter

ed a

cop

y of

the

chan

ge o

f ple

a fo

rm is

also

cop

ied

and

sent

to p

roba

tion.

Cost

savi

ng m

easu

res f

or th

e co

urt t

o re

duce

pap

er a

nd to

ner c

ost

alon

g w

ith sa

ving

cou

rt a

nd ju

stic

e pa

rtne

rs st

aff t

ime

for

dist

ribut

ion.

Also

a ti

mel

y re

port

ing

of c

ase

disp

ositi

on fo

r all

part

ners

.

Una

ble

to e

nter

war

rant

exc

eedi

ng $

99,9

99,9

99.9

9W

arra

nts e

xcee

ding

$99

,999

,999

.99

are

man

ually

type

d an

d fo

rwar

ded

to F

SO W

arra

nts f

or a

ctiv

atio

n, c

ausin

g ad

ditio

nal w

ork

and

pote

ntia

l err

ors.

V2 c

reat

es a

n in

tern

al w

arra

nt n

umbe

r whi

ch is

tran

smitt

ed

to th

e FS

O w

arra

nt D

epar

tmen

t.

Whe

n a

war

rant

is e

nter

ed in

to th

e V2

CM

S th

e sy

stem

cre

ates

an

inte

rnal

war

rant

num

ber w

hich

is tr

ansm

itted

ele

ctro

nica

lly to

the

FSO

War

rant

s Dep

artm

ent i

n ad

ditio

n to

the

case

num

ber.

Oft

en

times

the

inte

rnal

war

rant

num

ber w

as p

rovi

ded

by th

e ar

rest

ing

agen

cies

inst

ead

of th

e ca

se n

umbe

r. T

his c

ause

s def

enda

nts t

o be

ci

ted

with

an

inco

rrec

t cas

e nu

mbe

r. T

his r

esul

ts in

inco

rrec

t cite

s an

d JU

S871

5 be

ing

gene

rate

d an

d su

bmitt

ed to

the

Cour

t. C

ourt

st

aff t

hen

mus

t sea

rch

all o

f the

def

enda

nts c

ases

in V

2 to

iden

tify

whe

re to

app

ly th

e fo

rm a

nd/o

r cite

. Th

is is

a tim

e co

nsum

ing

proc

ess.

In

addi

tion,

whe

n st

aff c

an n

ot d

eter

min

e w

here

to a

pply

th

e fo

rms t

hey

are

retu

rned

to th

e ar

rest

ing

agen

cy fo

r cor

rect

ion,

ca

usin

g de

lays

in th

e pr

oces

sing

of th

e JU

S871

5 to

the

DOJ.

The

Cour

t can

util

ize it

s lim

ited

reso

urce

s to

com

plet

e ba

cklo

g in

ot

her h

igh

prio

rity

area

s. C

onvi

ctio

ns w

ill a

lso b

e re

port

ed to

the

DOJ t

imel

y.

Publ

ic D

efen

der R

elie

ved,

Priv

ate

Atto

rney

app

oint

ed a

nd

then

relie

ved.

3rd

Att

orne

y ap

poin

ted

will

not

prin

t on

wor

kshe

et o

r cal

enda

r.

Whe

n a

Publ

ic D

efen

der i

s rel

ieve

d an

d a

Priv

ate

Atto

rney

is

appo

inte

d an

d th

en la

ter r

elie

ved

whe

n th

e co

urt s

taff

upda

tes t

he

third

app

oint

men

t of a

pub

lic d

efen

der o

r att

orne

y th

e en

try

will

sa

ve. H

owev

er th

e at

torn

ey w

ill n

ot a

ppea

r on

the

cale

ndar

nor

on

the

wor

kshe

et.

A m

anua

l fix

is d

one

in th

e ca

se m

aint

enan

ce

scre

en to

cor

rect

the

issue

, cau

sing

mor

e st

aff r

esou

rces

to

dupl

icat

e w

ork

and

incr

ease

s the

err

or ra

te.

The

Cour

t can

util

ize it

s lim

ited

reso

urce

s to

com

plet

e ba

cklo

g in

ot

her h

igh

prio

rity

area

s. C

alen

dar a

nd w

orks

heet

s will

also

be

accu

rate

and

will

not

del

ay c

ourt

pro

ceed

ings

.

C:\U

sers

\pw

alla

ce\D

eskt

op\0

1 Te

mp

FSC

ROI\

Form

s fro

m A

OC\

Appe

ndix

A V

2 De

ficie

ncie

s.xl

sx V

2 O

pera

tions

317

5

ON

GOIN

G V2

DEF

ICIE

NCI

ES A

PRIL

201

3AP

PEN

DIX

A

V-2

Def

icie

ncy

Impa

ct o

f Def

icie

ncy

Bene

fits o

f get

ting

it re

solv

edN

on-C

ase

Paym

ent

Mul

tiple

cer

tifie

d co

pies

can

not

be

colle

cted

on

one

tran

sact

ion.

M

oney

is p

lace

d in

ove

rage

in th

e ov

erni

ght p

roce

ss.

The

wor

karo

und

is to

take

sepa

rate

tran

sact

ions

del

ayin

g co

unte

r pr

oduc

tive,

incr

ease

err

or ra

te a

nd im

pact

ing

exce

ssiv

e tim

e sp

ent

with

cus

tom

ers.

The

Cour

t can

util

ize it

s lim

ited

reso

urce

s to

com

plet

e ba

cklo

g in

ot

her h

igh

prio

rity

area

s and

also

pro

vide

mor

e ef

ficie

nt c

usto

mer

se

rvic

e.

DUI M

acro

mus

t be

used

to d

istrib

ute

Fine

/Fee

s cor

rect

ly.

DUI M

acro

mus

t be

used

to d

istrib

ute

Fine

/Fee

s cor

rect

ly.

Whe

n in

putt

ing

a DU

I sen

tenc

e in

V2,

Dat

a en

try

mus

t use

the

DUI m

acro

to

blo

w in

the

appr

opria

te c

odes

or i

t will

not

dist

ribut

e th

e fin

es/f

ees c

orre

ctly

beh

ind

the

scen

es.

This

is a

know

n de

fect

in V

2 ho

wev

er n

o on

e ca

n ex

plai

n w

hy th

is oc

curs

on

DUI s

ente

nces

. Thi

s is

a le

ngth

y pr

oces

s and

has

a h

ighe

r risk

of e

rror

s.

Cale

ndar

Tra

nsfe

rsCa

lend

ar tr

ansf

ers w

ill e

rror

whe

n a

defe

ndan

t has

mul

tiple

cas

es

whi

ch d

oes n

ot a

llow

for a

mas

s tra

nsfe

r. T

o co

rrec

t the

err

or

hear

ings

are

man

ually

vac

ated

and

ent

ered

indi

vidu

ally

into

V2

resu

lting

in m

ore

staf

f res

ourc

es.

The

Cour

t can

util

ize it

s lim

ited

reso

urce

s to

com

plet

e ba

cklo

g in

ot

her h

igh

prio

rity

area

s.

C:\U

sers

\pw

alla

ce\D

eskt

op\0

1 Te

mp

FSC

ROI\

Form

s fro

m A

OC\

Appe

ndix

A V

2 De

ficie

ncie

s.xl

sx V

2 O

pera

tions

417

6

ON

GOIN

G V2

DEF

ICIE

NCI

ES A

PRIL

201

3AP

PEN

DIX

A

V-2

Def

icie

ncy

Impa

ct o

f Def

icie

ncy

Bene

fits o

f get

ting

it re

solv

edRE

PORT

SCa

sh B

ail/T

rust

Rep

orts

(Fisc

al)

Ther

e ar

e no

dat

e pa

ram

eter

s the

refo

re, V

2 ha

s diff

icul

ty b

alan

cing

Tr

ust A

ccou

nts,

whi

ch c

ause

s the

repo

rt to

be

ongo

ing.

You

can

no

t go

back

and

reru

n a

spec

ific

date

par

amet

er.

As a

wor

karo

und

the

Fisc

al D

epar

tmen

t run

s a D

aily

Act

ivity

Rep

ort e

ach

mor

ning

an

d sa

ves t

he re

port

on

the

G: D

rive.

Cale

ndar

s (Cr

imin

al/T

raffi

c)O

nce

case

s are

hea

rd th

ey a

re re

mov

ed fr

om th

e ca

lend

ar li

st a

nd

plac

ed o

n a

Hear

ing

Held

Rep

ort.

The

Hea

ring

Held

Rep

ort d

oes

not c

aptu

re a

ll he

arin

gs h

eld

caus

ing

an in

accu

rate

repo

rt.

The

CMS

shou

ld b

e ab

le to

repr

oduc

e a

cale

ndar

and

also

hav

e th

e ca

pabi

litie

s to

show

wha

t cas

es h

ave

not y

et b

een

hear

d. B

ecau

se

this

is no

t wor

king

add

ition

al st

aff h

ave

been

ass

igne

d to

revi

ew

case

s and

scan

cal

enda

rs to

mem

oria

lize

the

day.

Bail

Bond

Reg

ister

(Crim

inal

)Th

e Co

urt i

s res

pons

ible

for p

rintin

g a

year

ly b

ond

regi

ster

. V2

is

unab

le to

prin

t a b

ond

regi

ster

for a

ll bo

ndsm

en w

ith sp

ecifi

c da

ta

para

met

ers.

Cur

rent

ly y

ou c

an o

nly

run

a re

port

in c

ombi

natio

ns.

We

will

be

inco

mpl

ianc

e to

pro

vide

a M

aste

r list

that

incl

udes

all

bond

age

ncie

s and

bon

d nu

mbe

rs.

Ove

rage

Rep

orts

(Fisc

al)

Onc

e re

conc

iled

the

case

s do

not d

rop

off.

Sa

ving

staf

f tim

e of

revi

ewin

g ca

ses t

hat h

ave

alre

ady

been

wor

ked

on b

ut re

mai

n on

repo

rt.

Case

and

Fun

d Di

strib

utio

n Re

port

(Fisc

al)

This

repo

rt d

oes n

ot h

ave

a se

arch

crit

eria

to lo

cate

spec

ific

fee

code

. Ac

coun

ting

man

ually

revi

ews d

ays o

f rep

orts

to lo

cate

cr

iteria

whe

n an

err

or d

etec

ted.

Tim

e sp

ent l

ocat

ing

fee

code

can

va

ry fr

om h

alf a

n ho

ur to

seve

ral h

ours

dep

endi

ng o

n ho

w c

omm

on

the

fee

code

.

Redu

ce st

aff t

ime

in lo

okin

g fo

r fee

cod

es.

Fisc

al R

epor

tAb

ility

to c

alcu

late

per

cent

age

off o

f the

tota

l am

ount

s col

lect

ed b

y Co

llect

ion

Offi

ce, C

redi

t Car

ds, s

cann

ed c

heck

pay

men

ts.

Ac

coun

ting

wou

ld li

ke to

stre

amlin

e m

anua

l pro

cess

if p

ossib

le.

DMV

Erro

r Rep

orts

(Tra

ffic/

Crim

inal

)W

hen

case

is c

orre

cted

or t

he a

ctiv

ity is

com

plet

ed th

e ca

se sh

ould

fa

ll of

the

repo

rt.

This

caus

es a

dditi

onal

wor

k be

caus

e th

e ca

se

does

not

dro

p of

f and

staf

f rev

iew

the

case

for e

rror

s .

C:\U

sers

\pw

alla

ce\D

eskt

op\0

1 Te

mp

FSC

ROI\

Form

s fro

m A

OC\

Appe

ndix

A V

2 De

ficie

ncie

s.xl

sx V

2 O

pera

tions

517

7

ON

GOIN

G V2

DEF

ICIE

NCI

ES A

PRIL

201

3AP

PEN

DIX

A

V-2

Def

icie

ncy

Impa

ct o

f Def

icie

ncy

Bene

fits o

f get

ting

it re

solv

edFI

SCAL

New

Law

sW

hen

new

law

s are

impl

emen

ted

and

mon

etar

y am

ount

s are

m

odifi

ed it

can

take

s mon

ths t

o co

nfig

ure

and

test

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

fees

in th

e V2

CM

S. B

ecau

se th

is pr

oces

s re

quire

s pro

gram

min

g th

e Co

urt m

ust r

ely

on th

e AO

C fo

r the

m

odifi

catio

ns.

Fisc

al o

ften

tim

es m

ust m

anua

lly m

odify

fee

tabl

es

for i

mpl

emen

tatio

n.

We

wou

ld b

e in

abl

e to

impl

emen

t new

law

s soo

ner.

Cash

bai

l tra

nsfe

rsCa

sh b

ail t

rans

fers

are

cur

rent

ly d

ocke

t cod

e dr

iven

in V

-2. T

his

caus

es a

pro

blem

esp

ecia

lly w

hen

data

staf

f ent

ers a

pplic

able

do

cket

cod

es c

ause

s mon

ies t

o be

misa

pplie

d/re

appl

ied

or

mod

ified

cau

sing

acco

untin

g ni

ghtm

ares

to b

alan

ce fi

nes/

fees

. If

erro

rs a

re n

ot c

augh

t the

sam

e da

te a

s ent

ry a

nd d

ata

entr

y st

aff

corr

ects

at a

late

r tim

e it

incr

ease

s the

err

or ra

te; d

istrib

utio

n of

m

onie

s are

sent

to in

corr

ect a

genc

ies.

Exa

mpl

e: In

ord

er to

cor

rect

on

e tr

ansa

ctio

n it

can

take

five

-ten

dock

et c

odes

cau

sing

addi

tiona

l m

isapp

lied/

reap

plie

d to

cor

rect

mon

ies.

In

addi

tion,

mon

ies t

hat

wer

e di

strib

uted

in e

rror

to in

corr

ect a

genc

ies c

anno

t be

retu

rned

on

ce d

istrib

uted

. Ac

coun

ting

has t

o w

ait u

ntil

addi

tiona

l mon

ies

are

colle

cted

to d

istrib

ute

to th

e co

rrec

t age

ncy.

Case

Pay

men

t Hist

ory

Scre

enTh

e m

isapp

ly/r

eapp

ly in

form

atio

n of

the

Case

Pay

men

t Hist

ory

Scre

en is

con

volu

ted.

The

aud

it tr

ail i

s diff

icul

t to

dete

rmin

e if

a re

fund

is d

ue.

Upd

atin

g Ba

il Di

strib

utio

n an

d Pe

nalty

Ass

essm

ent T

able

sU

pdat

ing

the

Bail

Dist

ribut

ion

and

Pena

lty A

sses

smen

t Tab

les a

re

time

cons

umin

g. T

here

is n

o se

arch

func

tion.

100

-100

0 d

iffer

ent

com

bina

tions

are

sear

ched

man

ually

to fi

nd th

e ap

plic

able

tabl

e.

C:\U

sers

\pw

alla

ce\D

eskt

op\0

1 Te

mp

FSC

ROI\

Form

s fro

m A

OC\

Appe

ndix

A V

2 De

ficie

ncie

s.xl

sx V

2 O

pera

tions

617

8

ON

GOIN

G V2

DEF

ICIE

NCI

ES A

PRIL

201

3AP

PEN

DIX

A

V-2

Def

icie

ncy

Impa

ct o

f Def

icie

ncy

Bene

fits o

f get

ting

it re

solv

edAP

PEAL

SEl

ectr

onic

subm

issio

n of

the

Cler

k's T

rans

crip

tV2

cur

rent

ly d

oes n

ot h

ave

this

func

tion.

The

Cou

rt n

eeds

to u

se a

st

and

alon

e pr

ogra

m (T

AP) t

o sc

an, o

rgan

ize a

nd su

bmit

the

Cler

k's

Tran

scrip

t ele

ctro

nica

lly to

the

5th

Dist

rict C

ourt

of A

ppea

ls. T

hese

do

cum

ents

are

not

inte

rfac

ed in

to V

2. T

he sc

anne

d do

cum

ents

can

on

ly b

e ac

cess

ed b

y th

e Ap

peal

s Dep

artm

ent (

limite

d ac

cess

).

Havi

ng th

e ab

ility

to su

bmit

the

Cler

k's T

rans

crip

t fro

m V

2 w

ould

free

up

staf

f to

do o

ther

func

tions

.

EXHI

BITS

No

exhi

bit m

odul

eCu

rren

tly V

2 do

es n

ot h

ave

an E

xhib

it M

odul

e. T

his w

ork

is cu

rren

tly a

man

ual p

roce

ss w

ith h

andw

ritte

n lo

gs, e

xcel

shee

ts fo

r th

e pu

rpos

e of

rece

ivin

g, tr

acki

ng, i

nven

tory

and

des

truc

tion

of

exhi

bits

.

The

Cour

t can

util

ize it

s lim

ited

reso

urce

s to

com

plet

e ba

cklo

g in

ot

her h

igh

prio

rity

area

s.

Exhi

bit W

ork

queu

es

Exhi

bit c

urre

ntly

has

no

wor

k qu

eues

in V

-2 to

trac

k on

a sp

ecifi

c ca

se w

ith re

tent

ion

time

line

for c

ase

type

s and

pro

ceed

ings

. St

aff

need

to m

anua

lly re

view

.

Incr

ease

exh

ibit

room

inve

ntor

y an

d in

sure

des

truc

tion

is pe

rfor

med

tim

ely.

C:\U

sers

\pw

alla

ce\D

eskt

op\0

1 Te

mp

FSC

ROI\

Form

s fro

m A

OC\

Appe

ndix

A V

2 De

ficie

ncie

s.xl

sx V

2 O

pera

tions

717

9

ON

GOIN

G V2

DEF

ICIE

NCI

ES A

PRIL

201

3AP

PEN

DIX

A

V-2

Def

icie

ncy

Impa

ct o

f Def

icie

ncy

Bene

fits o

f get

ting

it re

solv

ed

DMS

(Tra

ffic)

V2 d

oes n

ot c

urre

ntly

inte

rfac

e w

ith o

ur D

MS.

Cur

rent

ly w

e ar

e sc

anni

ng e

very

traf

fic c

itatio

n in

to th

e a

traf

fic re

posit

ory.

Ho

wev

er, s

taff

need

s to

exit

the

V2 C

MS

to re

trie

ve th

e do

cum

ent

from

the

DMS,

whi

ch c

ause

s del

ays.

Havi

ng th

e DM

S in

terf

aced

with

V2

wou

ld a

llow

the

Cour

t to

be

mor

e ef

ficie

nt b

y ac

cess

ing

one

CMS

for a

ll of

its n

eeds

.

DMS

(Crim

inal

)V2

doe

s not

cur

rent

ly in

terf

ace

with

our

DM

S. D

ocum

ents

cu

rren

tly sc

anne

d by

the

Crim

inal

Doc

umen

t are

lim

ited

to sp

ecifi

c co

urt o

rder

s. T

hey

are

stor

ed in

the

crim

inal

repo

sitor

y an

d ca

n on

ly b

e ac

cess

ed b

y Su

perv

isory

Sta

ff. T

his c

ause

s a d

elay

in

retr

ievi

ng th

ose

docu

men

ts e

lect

roni

cally

.

Havi

ng th

e DM

S in

terf

aced

with

V2

wou

ld a

llow

the

Cour

t to

be

mor

e ef

ficie

nt b

y ac

cess

ing

one

CMS

for a

ll of

its n

eeds

.

DMS

(Fisc

al )

V2 d

oes n

ot c

urre

ntly

inte

rfac

e w

ith o

ur D

MS.

Fisc

al w

ould

like

the

abili

ty to

scan

and

tie

refu

nd re

ques

t to

the

CMS.

Thi

s will

resu

lt in

be

tter

aud

iting

and

acc

ount

ing

of fi

ne a

nd fe

es.

Havi

ng th

e DM

S in

terf

aced

with

V2

wou

ld a

llow

the

Cour

t to

be

mor

e ef

ficie

nt b

y ac

cess

ing

one

CMS

for a

ll of

its n

eeds

.

Wor

k Q

ueue

sW

ork

Que

ues

Asid

e fr

om th

e Ev

ent M

anag

er (C

olle

ctio

ns) V

-2 d

oes n

ot h

ave

any

othe

r wor

k qu

eues

. Cu

rren

tly w

e ne

ed to

ass

ign

staf

f to

ensu

re

that

all

case

s hav

e be

en p

roce

ssed

and

that

all

appr

opria

te

step

s/pr

oces

ses h

ave

been

take

n. I

f we

had

wor

k qu

eues

set u

p w

ith th

e ap

plic

able

rule

s it w

ould

aut

omat

ical

ly p

rovi

de re

port

s of

case

s tha

t hav

e no

t bee

n pr

oces

s.

Havi

ng w

ork

queu

es w

ill b

enef

it al

l ope

ratio

nal a

reas

and

not

onl

y

redu

ce o

ur e

rror

rate

, it

will

also

pro

vide

us t

he a

bilit

y to

aud

it w

orkl

oads

and

util

ize o

ur st

aff i

n ot

her a

reas

.

Flag

sFl

ags

Abili

ty to

mai

ntai

n se

ttin

gs o

f pop

-up

boxe

s. E

xam

ple:

Whe

n fin

es/f

ees a

re p

aid

in fu

ll th

e pa

ymen

t sho

uld

rem

ove

the

flag

that

th

e ca

se is

in c

olle

ctio

ns.

Docu

men

t Man

agem

ent S

yste

m (D

MS)

C:\U

sers

\pw

alla

ce\D

eskt

op\0

1 Te

mp

FSC

ROI\

Form

s fro

m A

OC\

Appe

ndix

A V

2 De

ficie

ncie

s.xl

sx V

2 O

pera

tions

818

0

ON

GOIN

G V2

DEF

ICIE

NCI

ES A

PRIL

201

3AP

PEN

DIX

A

V-2

Def

icie

ncy

Impa

ct o

f Def

icie

ncy

Bene

fits o

f get

ting

it re

solv

edEl

ectr

onic

Fili

ngEl

ectr

onic

Fili

ng

V2 c

urre

ntly

doe

s not

allo

w fo

r ele

ctro

nic

filin

g. C

rimin

al

com

plai

nts a

re p

hysic

ally

file

d in

the

Cler

k's O

ffice

. Do

cum

ents

are

m

anua

lly st

ampe

d, si

gned

and

ass

igne

d a

case

num

ber w

hen

filed

. Th

e co

mpl

aint

is th

en m

anua

lly e

nter

ed in

to V

2.

With

the

clos

ure

of th

e O

utly

ing

Cour

ts, L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent A

genc

ies n

ow p

hysic

ally

tr

avel

to th

e Ce

ntra

l Cou

rt to

file

thei

r com

plai

nts b

efor

e th

e cl

ose

of th

e bu

sines

s day

(4:0

0 p.

m.).

Thi

s has

incr

ease

d th

e vo

lum

e of

ca

ses t

hat n

eed

to b

e en

tere

d fo

r hea

rings

the

follo

win

g bu

sines

s da

y.

Due

to th

e re

cent

OD

clos

ures

the

abili

ty to

rece

ive

elec

tron

ic fi

ling

will

gre

atly

ass

ist th

e La

w E

nfor

cem

ent A

genc

ies t

rave

ling

from

re

mot

e ci

ties a

s wel

l as c

reat

e ef

ficie

ncie

s for

the

Cour

t.

Col

lect

ions

Delin

quen

t Deb

t C

urre

ntly

V-2

has

no

mec

hani

sm in

pla

ce to

iden

tify

all d

elin

quen

t de

bt.

The

AO

C'S

Enha

nced

Col

lect

ions

Pro

gram

iden

tifie

s de

linqu

ent d

ebt a

s any

pay

men

t tak

en o

n a

case

that

is a

t lea

st o

ne

day

past

the

due

date

. W

e ar

e on

ly a

ble

to id

entif

y m

onie

s tha

t ha

ve b

een

take

n on

ce a

cas

e ha

s bee

n se

nt to

col

lect

ions

whi

ch

mak

es u

s not

com

plia

nt w

ith th

e co

llect

ion

guid

elin

es.

Bein

g ab

le to

iden

tify

all t

rue

delin

quen

t deb

t wou

ld a

llow

us t

o pr

oper

ly re

port

and

be

in c

ompl

ianc

e w

ith th

e Co

llect

ion

Guid

elin

es.

Colle

ctio

n M

odul

eV-

2 Co

llect

ion

mod

ule

is lim

ited

to a

n in

tern

al c

olle

ctio

n pr

oces

s w

hich

is n

ot fu

nctio

ning

for

Fre

sno.

A

man

ual p

roce

ss is

use

d to

id

entif

y, c

olle

ct a

nd se

nd d

elin

quen

t cas

es to

a th

ird p

arty

co

llect

ion

vend

or .

Beca

use

the

mod

ule

is no

t fun

ctio

ning

, any

fin

anci

al in

form

atio

n th

e Co

urt p

osse

sses

can

not b

e ut

ilize

d by

the

3rd

part

y ve

ndor

due

to th

e in

abili

ty o

f V-2

to in

put a

nd st

ore

the

info

rmat

ion

sepa

rate

from

the

case

.

If th

e co

llect

ion

mod

ule

was

func

tioni

ng, m

ore

info

rmat

ion

coul

d be

ga

ther

ed a

nd fo

rwar

ded

to o

ur 3

rd P

arty

Ven

dor t

o in

crea

se th

eir

colle

ctio

n ef

fort

s and

our

reve

nue.

C:\U

sers

\pw

alla

ce\D

eskt

op\0

1 Te

mp

FSC

ROI\

Form

s fro

m A

OC\

Appe

ndix

A V

2 De

ficie

ncie

s.xl

sx V

2 O

pera

tions

918

1

ON

GOIN

G V2

DEF

ICIE

NCI

ES A

PRIL

201

3AP

PEN

DIX

A

V-2

Def

icie

ncy

Impa

ct o

f Def

icie

ncy

Bene

fits o

f get

ting

it re

solv

edW

eb P

orta

lW

eb P

orta

lV2

Cur

rent

ly d

oes n

ot h

ave

a W

eb P

orta

l ava

ilabl

e fo

r Pub

lic A

cces

s to

cas

e in

form

atio

n on

-line

. Be

caus

e w

e do

not

pro

vide

this

optio

n w

e ar

e in

unda

ted

with

cus

tom

ers o

n th

e ph

one

and

at o

ur C

lerk

's co

unte

rs.

If th

is in

form

atio

n w

as re

adily

ava

ilabl

e on

-line

it w

ould

redu

ce th

e am

ount

of c

usto

mer

inqu

iries

and

pro

vide

our

cus

tom

ers w

ith h

ands

-on

info

rmat

ion

pert

aini

ng to

thei

r cas

e an

d ad

dres

s the

ir im

med

iate

ne

eds.

C:\U

sers

\pw

alla

ce\D

eskt

op\0

1 Te

mp

FSC

ROI\

Form

s fro

m A

OC\

Appe

ndix

A V

2 De

ficie

ncie

s.xl

sx V

2 O

pera

tions

1018

2

Judicial Council Technology Committee Recommendation to the Judicial Council:

Fresno Case Management System Replacement

The Superior Court of Fresno County has demonstrated an immediate need to replace both the V2 and Banner case management systems. The replacement of V2 provides the branch the opportunity for $3 million in annual savings, while replacement of the court’s Banner system addresses the high risk of system failure and vulnerability for loss of hosting support by the County.

The Technology Committee recommends the Judicial Council approve funding from the Trial Court Trust Fund, up to $2,373,200, for the Superior Court of Fresno County to replace their V2 case management system.

Funding distributed to the Fresno Court from the Trial Court Trust Fund, for systems replacement, will be contingent upon the following terms and conditions:

1. Verification and validation of proposed costs based on review of vendor responses to the Court’s case management system Request for Proposal (RFP), including technical specifications and resource requirements; and the preferred vendor’s final contract proposal;

2. In line with the efforts of the branch to maintain transparency with technology projects, the court must submit notification of the project to the California Department of Technology (CalTech) according to Government Code section 68511.9 in the event the total project costs including local court staff costs, operations costs, and the first year of maintenance costs post deployment exceed five million dollars;

3. The funds distributed will not exceed the requested level of funding ($2,373,200) beyond FY 2015- 2016;

4. The funds will be distributed over a two year period in accordance with the contract and upon submission of invoices for product and services necessary to acquire and deploy the court’s case management system;

5. The Administrative Office of the Courts will provide project oversight, including monitoring project progress and costs to assure the distributions are appropriate; as well as, independent project oversight for a period of 2 years; and

6. The Court will provide the Administrative Office of the Courts with access to all records necessary to evaluate and monitor the project and will cooperate fully with efforts of the Trial Court Liaison Office to do so.

Attachment 2

183

01 TCBAC 081413 agenda v3 - California Courts · Action Requested Please Provide Recommendation...

Documents

Transcript of 01 TCBAC 081413 agenda v3 - California Courts · Action Requested Please Provide Recommendation...